Welcome

News

Leaders face a time of reckoning
February 19, 2018 By Michael Wayland
DETROIT — The UAW’s traditional tactics of walkouts, sit-ins and strikes can’t help it fight the latest threats to its fading influence.

The union, already weakened by the proliferation of foreign auto plants in the South, low-wage competition in Mexico and decades of factory closures on its home turf, is now reeling from a haymaker delivered by its own leadership: a $4.5 million corruption scandal reigniting complaints that the UAW has gotten too cozy with company executives.

Some believe the malfeasance uncovered by federal authorities could deal a crippling blow to the union, devastating the broader American labor movement as well, following several failed attempts by the UAW to organize plants and with right-to-work laws now letting dissatisfied members in Michigan and other states opt out.

UAW dissidents see the situation — years of funneling money meant to train workers into the pockets of union and company officials instead — as an opportunity for profound change. They’re urging rank-and-file members to “take back” the union from leaders they claim are overly willing to comply with employers’ requests.

A state court dismissed a key union objection to a think tank’s effort to inform home health aides that they are not obligated to pay union dues.

Service Employees International Union Local 775 filed suit to block the Freedom Foundation, a Washington State-based free-market think tank, from reaching out to home health aides to inform them they could no longer be compelled to pay union dues and fees following a 2014 Supreme Court ruling. King County Superior Court Judge Steve Rosen granted a summary judgment on Friday tossing the union’s claim that the group’s outreach constituted “tortious interference,” in which a party causes economic harm to another.

Foundation attorney James Abernathy called the ruling on Friday a victory for free speech rights, saying, “the First Amendment won and SEIU lost” in a statement. The SEIU’s contention that the foundation’s outreach would prevent it from collecting expected revenue “was the heart of their case,” according to Abernathy; the judge’s dismissal could undermine the rest of the union’s claims, allowing the organization to continue its outreach campaign.